dotCommonweal

The Jews and the Masons, again...

What is with those people, messing with the Catholic Church? Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the schismatic traditionalists that Benedict XVI has been diligently courting for years, says he has been assured the pope is really on his side and we shouldn't pay any mind to the "political"cover stories coming out of the Vatican about Rome's problems with the SSPX.Besides, you know who is really at fault. CNS reports:

According to an audio recording posted on YouTube Dec. 30, the bishop gave a nearly two-hour talk Dec. 28 at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in New Hamburg, Ontario. He spoke about the society's three years of discussions with the Vatican over the society's future and explained how he interpreted behind-the-scenes communications about the talks.Apparently speaking without a text, he also called the Jewish people "enemies of the church," saying Jewish leaders' support of the Second Vatican Council "shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the church's." (The full audio is embedded below.)Those most opposed to the church granting canonical recognition to the traditionalist society have been "the enemies of the church: the Jews, the Masons," he said.

Well, there's the hermeneutic of continuity for ya.The pope got himself in a bit of trouble in 2009 when he "rehabilitated" Fellay and three other SSPX leaders, including Bishop Richard Williamson, a Holocaust denier later thrown under the bus by Fellay, who is seen as the acceptable face of the Lefebvrists.Benedict later said that the Vatican failed to do a Google search on Williamson to learn about his proclivities beforehand, an explanation which seemed implausible given Benedict's longstanding ties to the SSPX and the SSPX's longstanding history of anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish statements.Williamson's defenestration and the purging of a couple other priests was said to have cleared that all up. Maybe not so much.Why is the Vatican continuing the pursuit of the SSPX? At what cost? A principal result of the reconciliation effort has been to shift the center of gravity in the church to the far right, so that right wingers who might have been on the fringe in years past are considered sensible centrists -- a phenomenon we have also seen in the Republican party in recent years. In the end, it may be irrelevant whether the SSPX or some of its elements return to Rome. The larger goal has been achieved.

Comments

Ann: The example the Pope adduced, and to which I referred, was not the statement about the Jews but the one about religious freedom, so your first point is not relevant to my post.Secondly, there is nothing illogical in saying that there is continuity in one teaching and not in another. He admitted that there was discontinuity between certain things in, say, the Syllabus of Errors and Dignitatis humanae, so he escapes the strictures of your second paragraph. That there was nothing continuous on the level of principle between the two documents I think he would deny, just as I would.John Courtney Murray argued that there were three essential principles that controlled Catholic teaching on Church and State:

(1) The first principle is that of "the freedom of the Church." The Church must be free fully to exercise her power to teach, sanctify, and rule, and to this end to "occupy ground" in this world....(2) The second principle is that of the necessary harmony between "the two laws" whereby the life of man is governed--the divine law, both natural and positive, and the human law made by the political power..... As a member of two societies the human person has the inherent right to demand that the two laws whereby he is governed should be in harmony with each other; if they are in conflict, the conflict is felt within him, and results in the destruction of his inner integrity.(3) The third principle is that of the necessary cooperation between Church and State, each in its own order, towards the total good of man. The principle itself is always valid; but the forms of this cooperation have varied. They are not determined by the nature of the Church, or by the nature of man. Rather, they are determined by the special character of particular political societies as these exist in varying and changing historical contexts. The forms of political society, like the forms of private property, are subject to historical evolution, especially in what concerns the institutions of government. The modern lay democratic state can be regarded as a legitimate term of that progressive development of the distinction and relative independence of "the two societies" which is visible in political and ecclesiastical history.

Murray concluded his argument:

The conclusion from the foregoing is that the affirmation of American political principles entails no denial or diminution of traditional Catholic principles regarding the relationship between Church and State.On the contrary, only the manner of applying these principles need be different, in order that Catholic doctrine may be vitally adapted to this modern form of the democratic State.

Now one may disagree with one or another of the stated principles, but one can also see that an intelligent argument is being made here which could well illustrate Pope Benedict's distinction between enduring principles and concrete applications. There is no rigamarole about it, nothing embarrassing about it. I would like to know what "established meanings" of "continuity" and "contingency" are misused in the argument of either man.

I have to say that it is dreadfully difficult to first understand and then explain ideas such as partial communion, levels of continuity and discontinuity, hierarchies of truths, and more generally everything that is not black and white.

JAK --The problem I was addressing is how Benedict has reacted to the SSPXers' contention that "the Church never changes its teachings"As you say, Benedict (at times) admits that some teachings have changed insofar as specific applications of certain general principles have changed. But notw consider what he said in 2005. According to Sandro Magister, he quoted JP II on the truths of the faith, and then commented on what John XXIII had said, and then appealing to "the of discontinuity and rupture" and "the hermeneutics of reform" as contrasting ways of interpretation:"I would like to quote pope John XXIII's well known words in which this hermeneutic [of reform] is unequivocally expressed when he said that the Council ;wishes to transmit doctrine pure and whole, without attenuating or falsifying it', and continues: 'Our duty is not only to watch over this precious treasure, as if we were only concerned with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with active will and without fear to this work, which our age demands... It is necessary that this sure and immutable doctrine, faithfully respected, must be deepened and presented in a way that answers the needs of our time. One thing is in fact the deposit of faith, that is the truths contained in our venerated doctrine, and another thing is the way they are enounced, maintaining nevertheless their same meaning and scope' (S. Oec. Conc. Vat. II Constitutiones Decreta Declarationes, 1974, pp. 863-865)."http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/44072?eng=yNote especially that the hermeneutic of reform "wishes to transmit doctrine PURE AND WHOLE, WIHOUT ATTENUATING OR FALSIFYING IT". It is "SURE AND IMMUTABLE". I grant you that John XXIII thinks it must be expressed in different ways -- but the SAME DOCTRINE MUST BE PRESERVED IN THE NEW LANGUAGE -- INCLUDING THE SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE. This clearly implies that the Catholic doctrine cannot change at all (even in scope, in specifics)) without falsifying the old. Benedict here agrees with this view, so it is understandable that Benedict avoids making such a bald statement as "a teaching was changed". He would prefer some other way of talking about the differences in teachings. Now consider what he said this very week about the difference between the teachings of Vatican I and Vatican II about freedom of religion. He said that the teaching of Vatican I was "not sufficient". He did not say outright that it was wrong/false/mistaken/at variance with today's teaching -- no, according to Benedict this week it was just "not sufficient" -- and he said this even after he has already admitted elsewhere that it is different, i.e., changed -- wrong.He contradicts himself from speech to speech. No doubt the SSPXers have noticed.http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/art... myself have no problems with changing specific teachings while retaining the general. What I have problems with is Benedict's *implication* in other contexts that there are no changed specifics -- that "Church teachings" remain "whole and immutable".

Claire --I have problems with any theory of "a hierarchy of truth" other than a hierarchy among more and less general truths and specific and particular ones. My big problem is with the levels of authority of Church teachings which are sometimes spoken of as if different "having different levels of authority" confer different levels of truth on statements. Yes, there are different levels of certitude, but certitude is an attitude towards a statement (confidence). Certitude is not a grasp of the truth of the statement. The authority to teach possessed by an individual is not identical with what is taught, and that is quite different from the "authority" of the statement itself. Granted, some authority to teach possessed by a person is greater or less than other's authority. But *what is taught* cannot be both more or less true, no matter how much the Curia would like some statements to be hedgeable. If Church teachings are truly inspired, they cannot be false in the least.

Ann: Re your comment: "If Church teachings are truly inspired, they cannot be false in the least." The traditional view is that only the Scriptures may be said to be "inspired", a term that is not properly applied to Church teachings, even those dogmatically defined.The conciliar comment--"When comparing doctrines [i.e., Catholic and non-Catholic doctrines], they [Catholic theologians] should remember that in Catholic teaching there exists an order or 'hierarchy' of truths, since they vary in their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith."--does not suggest that some truths are "more true" than others, but that they vary in their relationship to what is fundamental in Christian faith. Some doctrines are closer, some more distant. I think the sentence was designed as a way of suggesting that in ecumenical conversation one should not confuse the central and the peripheral, to change the metaphor, with perhaps the suggestion that the conversation ought to focus on the central, as indeed has happened in the last fifty years.It is traditional also to distinguish the degree of authority that stands behind doctrines, that is, the degree to which the Church has committed itself to them. In that sense, there would be greater authority--trustworthiness--behind something that has been universally believed and has been dogmatically defined in an ecumenical council (e.g., the Holy Trinity) and something that has been simply a pious belief (e.g., guardian angels?). (The two examples could also illustrate the meaning of a "hierarchy" of truths: belief in the Holy Trinity is more fundamental, more central, to Christian belief than belief in guardian angels.)

Father K, I normally try to stay out of arguments with people smarter than me, but in your discussion with Ann you are focusing on what the magisterium (pope) thinks it (he) is doing. But if the faithful get it fouled up -- believe, for example, that guardian angels are as important as the Trinity or that the Jews always were and always will be "perfidious" -- how does it help the Church's mission that the shepherds know what they are doing if all the while the sheep keep thinking what they (wrongly?) think they were (wrongly?) taught?

Does Augustine's dictum, as embraced by Newman, "Securus iudicat orbis terrarum" ("The verdict of the world is conclusive"), have bearing on the SSPX's exalted claims regarding the errors of the Second Vatican Council, and on the several facets of the discussion of same represented on this thread? I tend to think it does, but I defer to the those better versed in theology than I. I just can't see Newman's being persuaded by the position of Fellay and his followers.

John: I think the dictum does apply. All of the conciliar texts were passed by overwhelming majorities and the reforms authorized by the Council have also been accepted and received by the great majority of Catholics. The SSPX represent a tiny percentage of Catholics worldwide, and one would have to believe that a general apostasy has taken place in the Church for them to be considered the "true" Catholic Church, the faithful remnant. In his little book on the Lefebvre case, Fr. Congar made a similar argument about them.

Were the reforms of the post-Conciliar commissions broadly accepted? I wonder. There certainly was a remarkable exodus from religious and liturgical life at the time. I'm not questioning the Council, but the success of its immediate implementation.

I should explain my remarks above. I've spoken to a number of people who left liturgical practice after the Council because they felt like there was nothing for them at Mass anymore. Recently I spoke with a priest who left his religious community and became a secular priest because the liturgical life proper to his Order prior to the Council was perceived to be outlawed. I think there was a lot of quiet shuffling out the door, folks no one has ever counted.

Kathy: I think we can probably all mention similar anecdotes, but I don't think they will add up to a number sufficient to challenge my comment above about "the great majority of Catholics" and the reception of the Council.

Similarly to what David Nickol wrote in the latest thread about gays: "A big question for the Catholic Church (or any religion, I suppose) is how it chooses to interact with people it wishes to evangelize but will not accept into the fold until there is some kind of conversion.Of course, the question would be quite different if the Church did not consider disagreement on [conciliar] matters of such importance that if you disagree, you place yourself outside the Church. It seems to me, in spite of the fact that some even claim that [Vatican II documents] are infallible, that [liturgy] is a matter about which if you dont get too vocal in your disagreement, you are not considered outside the Church. But [submission to papal authority] is a matter that, however privately you dissent on, you are considered outside the Church. And if you speak up, you will be disciplined or silenced."

Fr.,What would the percentage have to be to qualify as a challenge?Another anecdote: once I worked as a research assistant for a sociologist. If anyone did anything particularly pious (left parish ministry for a spiritual motivation, e.g. to become a Benedictine), that person's questionnaire was discounted. The person was called, quote, "an unusual person," and their response was not noted.

"Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the schismatic traditionalists that Benedict XVI has been diligently courting for years, says he has been assured the pope is really on his side "Can we prove that he isn't? Benedict almost restored the "perfidious Jews" prayer, and when forced to change it brought back the idea that Jews need to be converted to Jesus (in clear opposition to John Paul II).Benedict believes that the Old Testament is not Scripture in the full sense as the New Testament is and that Isaiah's hope for world peace was an illusion transcended by Jesus who brought inner peace instead. Marcion?

Fr. K - your earlier comments about anti-Semitic language from the SPPX, Masons, liberals, etc. Can you comment about the false allegations made by curial conservatives & opponents of some of VII about Bugnini as a Mason? It seems to be in step with the Fellay comments.Kathy - would suggest that you are repeating the traditionalist mantra about how Vatican II can be completely judged by number of vocations, mass attendance, etc. It is a mantra because it confuses categories, makes a sweeping over-generalization, and makes room for no type of nuance.Reality - others have demonstrated through sociological and theological studies that the West underwent dramatic cultural and societal changes in the second half of the 20th century. Some theologians and church fathers were already discussing trends indicating that church attendance, etc. were being impacted by the pre-Vatican II liturgy, catechesis, etc. This was one of the drivers behind a *reformed* liturgy. Sociology trackes cultural changes - they do not happen overnite and can take decades. The sexual revolution, changes in politics, views on gender equality, racial equality, human rights, etc. were significant in the second half of the 20th century (these had nothing to do with Vatican II).And what does your *thesis* say when we have seen explosive Church growth in the southern hemisphere - almost 100% along the lines of Vatican II. Your mantra seems to be isolated to a narrow, European dominated cohort - a cohort that was already having trouble by the time of Vatican II.Other church historians have shown that religious vocations at the mid-20th century were an anomoly in church history - the total number of priest/nun vocations had never been that large - it was an outlier. The numbers or pattern in terms of vocations returned to historical patterns by the 1990s. Again, this had little to do with Vatican II. These same researchers have shown (with a few exceptions) that most religious orders are founded for specific reasons, grow, meet a specific need, and die out within a hundred years (an average). Keep in mind, religious/clerical vocations is not the goal of the church.You seem to imply that the life of the church can be measured only by the number of religious vocations.....well, that measure has never really been used in the history of the church. Rather, measuring the life of the church was based upon other things e.g. specific religious orders or leaders/founders who arrived to address specific church needs (rather than to only found an order - rather a selfish goal). Vatican II deliberately re-looked at theology and structure so that the people of God were a starting point for the mystery of the church through Jesus Christ; not clerical vocations; not a hierarchy and they redefined church vocations - they are servants and ministries to meet specific needs. They exist to serve the church - not the other way around.

A very devout and conservative relative of mine said the best way to move past calls for Latin Masses is for people to actually attend one. He went to one recently and he said it reminded him how glad he was that we got rid of them. I guess not all who remember the old ways mourn their passing.

Bill,I don't have a "mantra." And surely you will agree that belittling characterizations have no place in reasonable argument, here or elsewhere. Besides their obvious rudeness, they immediately make an argument look weak, because they seem to say that a person feels the need to bolster his/her side of the argument with insults. If you really believe in what you are saying, why not just say it.You have a point regarding the worldwide Church. But discussions hereabouts tend to be about American Catholicism. Charity begins at home. Here in the States there was an immediate, precipitate flight from the commitment that lifelong religious vocations represent. Any parish worker will tell you that weddings are still on the decline, so it is not as though the vocation to matrimony has taken up where religious life left off. Fr. Komonchak, I thought, suggested that the flights following the Council were anecdotal and not widespread enough to reflect poorly on the post-Conciliar implementation. I think the statistics tend to argue otherwise. I also think that discussions will be more fruitful when they distinguish between what the Council Fathers themselves wrote, and what was implemented by working groups.

Yes, some of the reforms of the Council had begun years prior to it. Maybe one reason that Vatican II has been followed by a mass exodus from the Church is that Vatican II was actually too little too late. :-(

Kathy: To clarify: I pointed out the anecdotal character of your, er. anecdotes, and said that they were not enough to belie the claim that the great majority of US (and other) Catholics had received the Council, and this in support of the view that "the whole world is a safe judge," against the Lefebvrites. I wasn't making any great claims about how well the Council was implemented, and your questions are legitimate: Why did the reform of the liturgy not result in an increase in Mass-attendance? Why were texts about the priesthood and religious life--texts that went far beyond pre-conciliar dreams--followed by a mass exodus and precipitous declines in vocations? I'm sure the answers need to be complex--and Bill de Haas points to some of the complexities--, but the questions are legitimate. Bill de Haas: I've read that Bugnini was banished to Iran because he was accused of being a Mason. There are people who see a Mason behind every other tree--e.g., John XXIII, Paul VI, and others whose views and actions they disagree with it.

Thank you, Fr. K. I think they are not only legitimate but essential questions, and I agree that the answers would be complex. I would enjoy teasing them out, with as much light (and as little heat) as possible.

Thanks, Fr. K.Kathy - you quibble and your anecdotes from a couple of personal experiences color what you are asking or saying. You started with a question, immediately linked to a statement - e.g. "Were the reforms of the post-Conciliar commissions broadly accepted? I wonder. There certainly was a remarkable exodus from religious and liturgical life at the time. Im not questioning the Council, but the success of its immediate implementation."You then posted a statement about *halved* ordinations and link to mass attendance. Again, you posited an assumption that less ordinations and mass attendance impacted the success of VII implementation. Sorry if you interpret my response as *heat* but your anecdotes remind of the usual *mantra - banter* that you read on traddie blogs. The sub-set is the frequent haranguing about how traditional orders vocations are booming vs. so called VII orders (experts have studied, explained, and corrected this mantra caricature) - if anything can be said, it is that traditional orders have refused to implement lots of VII.You responded to my *heat* but not the core of my response or points, again. Let's ask questions but let's not skew the analysis from the get go by assuming your *measuring* stick or leaping to the conclusion that less ordinations or mass attendees are directly linked to VII implementation. In fact, most church historians writing about VII and its implementation would posit that JPII and even more, Ratzinger/B16 have *paused* or *turned back* VII goals, directives in terms of VII's implementations. Examples - new code of Canon Law 1983 (ignored or failed to express VII directives e.g. collegiality); liturgical changes e.g. Summorum Pontificum, Liturgiam Authenticam, Vox Clara, etc.You quickly dismiss my comment about 2/3rds of the church where VII seems to be an overwhelming success. You choose to focus on the European/N. American church - as I suggested earlier, trends and patterns in terms of mass attendance were already decreasing by the time of VII and societal/cultural changes only speeded this up. Have not even mentioned the *elephant in the living room* - Humanae Vitae....which had nothing to do with VII and, in the eyes of many, undercut what VII directed. Any sociologist would show that marked decreases happened after 1968 - European/N. American church did not accept its teaching...leading to changes in authority acceptance, responses to epsicopal announcements, etc. At least in the US, by 1980s we had a significant change in the tone and style of US bishops - conservative, authoritarian, etc. and continued decrease in mass attendance. In fact, the other significant *elephant in the living room* is the current curial/papal/US episcopal denial and avoidance of the lack of mass attendance - what you see, instead, are weak efforts called *new evangelization*, etc.Again, agree with Fr. K - the question is good but your continued anecdotes and sweeping generalizations/connections don't shed much light on the subject.

Bill, calm down. Honestly. Hopefully we are all looking for the truth here, right? Because best pastoral practices take into account their effects on human beings. I realize these particular issues have been troped again and again, on both sides. But that is not what I am trying to do, and I would ask you once again to stop the name calling. I really have trouble hearing your valid points over the shouting.If we are to have any clarity on this subject, I think we should probably begin by avoiding generalizations about "what Vatican II said." When referring to the Council's teachings, I think we should ordinarily begin with the texts of its documents.

Okay, Kathy - but your last line is another matra - "When referring to the Councils teachings, I think we should ordinarily begin with the texts of its documents."That is a nonsensical approach - we don't do that with scripture unless you believe *literalism* is part of the church tradition (it is not).Fr. K has written authoritatively on this subject and coupled with the likes of O'Malley, Faggioli, Baldovin, Congar, etc., you can't just start with the texts and expect that this will provide some type of *enlightenment*.

Bill deHaas: If we want to find "what Vatican II said" or "the Council's teachings," surely we have to go first to the texts: that's where the Council said what it said, taught what it taught." That's not the end of the interpretation, but it surely is part of it. And I think the same is true of reading the Scriptures. If someone accuses St. Paul of something, I have a right to ask, "Where did he say that? In what text?" And this isn't "literalism"?

I finally took a deep breath and looked at the transcript. Fellay says that Jews are enemies of the Church. In 2012! Given that, if we're going to hold our nose and, in spite of the pestilence, pay any attention at all to what he is saying, we should start by assuming that whatever opinion he has on anything, the opposite opinion is the one more likely to be true.That is why there can be no dialogue with the SSPX. It is impossible to be open in the presence of the repulsive stench of anti-Semitism. If some people want to do the dirty job of negotiating with them, let them try, but they may get stained in the process. (How come they're not repulsed? Isn't that suspect already?)Fellay makes me think of Fanny in the fairy tale "diamonds and toads". "When Fanny arrived home, she told her story to her mother and disgusting toads and vipers fell from her mouth with each word. [] In time, even the widow was sickened by her older daughter, and drove her out, and she died alone and miserable in the woods."

I think everyone agrees that there is an important difference between causation and association. There are a countless number of very significant movements, trends, and events that have occurred in the church and in the world in the time since the conclusion of Vatican II. Lots of things that have happened in the church since 1965 are associated with either the texts or with forces set in motion at Vatican II but not caused by them. The decline in the number of couples coming to the church to arrange a wedding is one such item. This is partially the result of a significantly reduced birth rate. It is also a consequence of the sexual liberation movement which certainly accelerated in the 60's but cannot be traced to any conciliar teaching of implementation that occurs to me. It is further associated with the movement against authorities of all kinds which was perhaps kindled by the anti-war movement, the watergate scandal, as well as the reaction to Humanae Vitae. But while there are less weddings in the church by those entering marriage, there has been a huge increase in the number of couples reconciled to the sacramental life of the church after a failure in marriage through the annulment process and other pastoral initiatives. With regard to the great decline in vocations to the priesthood and religious life we must also consider the astronomical increase in the number of Catholics embracing the call to service and holiness because of a renewed understanding of the sacraments of initiation. The number of individuals seeking degrees in theology, biblical studies, liturgy, and canon law now far exceeds the number of seminarians and priests who sought them in the glory days of old. Whether this was caused by VII or merely associated with it I'm unsure. As to attendance at Mass: I think the decline may be directly attributable to the changes both in the liturgy and the manner in which priests have exercised their pastoral ministry. In the past priests--and their episcopal superiors--were perceived as the only ones who knew what the church believed and could teach it authoritatively. What Father said was supposed to be followed, whether it always made a lot of sense or not. So if he said eating meat on Fridays would result in eternal hellfire, so be it. Following VII, priests are not the only people who have access to the history or teachings of the church. They can no longer just tell people what they are supposed to believe or supposed to do without expecting some critical assessment by the people. Some people needed to be told what to do and what to think and were scandalized by the notion that they might have to do some thinking for themselves. Many of these "more Catholic than the Pope types" left the church shaking the dust from their feet. Another cohort that left includes those whose passivity during the Mass of old left them thinking that fully, conscious, and active participation in Mass was just about a lot of noise and moving around. Nor had it occurred to many of them that there was a huge connection between how and what we prayed on Sunday and what we did during the rest of the week. Now they were faced with calls to be actively involved in parish life which included participation in adult education classes, and many just thought it was too "protestant" for them. Did I mention the folks who thought it was also too protestant for them to be singing during Mass? Anyway, there's lots to consider when assessing what was or was not caused with VII.

Thanks, Fr. Jack - excellent comment.Fr. K - sorry if I have pricked something; of course your f/u comment is correct but, IMO, disingenous at best. Kathy's pattern is to quote from traddie blogs - her two comments are typical and her f/u statements or historical connections reveal little beyond the usual traddie mantras. Not sure what the agenda is here but will leave it at that.Would end by just adding that two topics were not allowed to be discussed at Vatican II by Paul VI - birth control and celibacy. Would suggest that papal action or inaction on both of these topics had more to do with the last 40 years than any judgment about VII implementation. Add to that papal centralization; sexual abuse scandals, financial scandals, church/school closures that are only increasing....and the pattern of institutional/clerical denial is there.

Bill deH. --I didn't know that Paul VI had forbidden discussion of contraception and celibacy at VII. That implies that there were bishops at that time who already saw them as significant problems and wanted to discuss them. How different the history of the Church might have been had the topics been debated! Yes, maybe VII just didn't go far enough to stem the upcoming exodus. Denial, denial, denial. When will the Vatican learn that it never works.

F/U - sorry for corporate jargon....*follow up* as in:"If we want to find what Vatican II said or the Councils teachings, surely we have to go first to the texts: thats where the Council said what it said, taught what it taught. Thats not the end of the interpretation, but it surely is part of it. And I think the same is true of reading the Scriptures. If someone accuses St. Paul of something, I have a right to ask, Where did he say that? In what text? And this isnt literalism?"Assumed we all know that this is the staring point but Kathy's comment is too often *code* for a traddie mantra that justifies some type of alternative universe approach - the hermeneutic of continuity or reform of the reform in continuity, etc. Read Fr. Z's blog. It eventually becomes a circular argument that goes nowhere. Thus, start with the text can mean rejecting any type of interpretation (sorry, hermeneutic) that sees Vatican II as an *event*; or sees the spirit of Vatican II as a reality; or accepts the usually accepted Alberigo interpretation (you were the english editor?); that wants to somehow ignore the notes and records of the council written by the likes of Congar, Rahner, Ratzinger, Schillebeeckx, etc. Often it means you can copy/paste from a VII document and then, as if there is no history, context, different sides to the question, or even that the final language was a compromise - you can write and interpret as if the Ottaviani camp wrote this specific paragraph and it means *whatever* as opposed to what the *spirit of VII* folks have said. It all gets very tiresome and frustratiing.Not unlike those who take the Advent talk by B16 and see it as some type of full blown reform of the reform that shows that B16 felt that all prior interpretations were a rupture and only his ROTR movement would save us from this wrong approach. Actually, as you have written, B16 emphasized the it was a hermeneutic of reform - and that the extreme positions pushed one to either rupture or that nothing happened at Vatican II (well, it was a pastoral council - another mantra). You alos posit that he was speaking to groups such as SSPX - rather than the usual approach by the ROTR folks who use this talk as a cudgel against reform, spirit, etc. Or we get the even more exotic - *mutual enrichment* stuff.

Here's an effort of the SSPX effort to contain the fire: http://www.sspx.org/district_news/usa_district_press_release_on_enemies_... deHaas: My students used to express surprise upon reading SC 36:1-2 and would ask how it happened that the vernacular was introduced into the whole of the liturgy and Latin largely disregarded. Their questions contained no "codes" and didn't come from Tradi sties. Many people rightly claim that the Council's teaching on collegiality and co-responsibility has not been adequately received. How can one assess that claim except by close examination of the conciliar texts on the subjects, texts that, of course, need to be understood historically and contextually and with whatever auxiliary helps are available. But it remains that the texts are the starting-point for any understanding of the history of the reception, or non-reception, of the Council's teaching.In the last chapter of Models of the Church, Avery Dulles called for "a collective and ecumenical application of the 'presupposition' set forth by St. Ignatius of Loyola at the beginning of the Spiritual Exercises: 'Let it be presupposed that every good Christian is more ready to save his neighbor's proposition than to condemn it.'"

Kathy, if you want to avoid a climate of suspicion, you probably had better choose a thread other than one about the SSPX and anti-Semitism if you want to start criticizing the council.Fr K, was that last paragraph for me? I know my last comment was intemperate, but do not wish to even try to apply self-restraint against anti-Semitism. Intemperate, and with no regrets.

Claire - he was continuing to respond to my earlier comments directed to Kathy.Fr. K - totally agree with what you have written and hope that in my historical and current life that I have approached scripture, theology, ecclesiology, liturgy, and pastoral questions in this way. Again, agreed with you earlier. I may state this approach by highlightiing or emphasizing a different part of your statement but agree with it. Would suggest that we only differed earlier in our emphases.This started with a question and immediate statement by Kathy - and I reacted not to the question but the statement. Sorry if my reaction (use of the term *code*) is what precipitated this off the subject comment trail. Yes, you are correct (quoting Avery Dulles) that I reacted to what Kathy stated and then reacted when she became defensive and sought some type of support that her initial question was a good one. She then changed the subject again and threw out the line about *starting from the texts*. You and I will have to agree to disagree in terms of my reaction and reading into Kathy's statements. Find her comments to follow a pattern; connect dots that just aren't there historically; and appear to mimic some of the same topics in some of the most outspoken traddie blogs e.g. Fr. Zuhlsdorf, etc. You are correct that this may not be fair but will leave it up to other dotCommonweal commenters on whether I have over-reacted or misread Kathy on that point (see Claire's comment above). (Didn't you teach Kathy at some point? wonder if that reflects some subjectivity in your comments? Have you also given me and my comments the same treatment as advocated in your Avery Dullles' quote- yes, you did affirm some of my propositions in my initial reponse)Allow me to go back to the initial question/statement and cite Congar (1978-79):"I do not believe that the present crisis is the fruit of Vatican II. On the one hand, much of the disturbing facts we see today were on their way already in the 1950s, sometimes already in the 1930s. Vatican II has been followed by a socio-cultural mutation whose amplitude, radicality, rapidity, and global character have no equivalent in any other period of history. The Council felt this mutation, but it did not know every aspect nor its violence."Will just leave it at that! (vs. anecdotal stories that provide a sweeping generalization about VII failure based upon mass attendance and lack of clerical vocations)

Bill deHaas: You wrote: "Didnt you teach Kathy at some point? wonder if that reflects some subjectivity in your comments?"You might consider that it might have led me to a greater objectivity in her regard.

It was one of the toughest classes I took, and the one I looked forward to the most.It is true that I believe that the documents of Vatican II are to be taken as they are, without much consideration of the context. I certainly do not feel that they should be taken as compromise documents. Yesterday I decided to read from The History of Vatican II. I read the introduction to the first volume, and a lot of Fr. Komonchak's essay on the Preparatory phase. Liturgy was obviously an interesting aspect of the preparatory phase. Maybe that is a place to start.The introduction to Volume I does seem to say that context is all-important for interpreting the event of the Council. I guess the presupposition there is that the event-character of the Council is important for interpreting the documents. If I am reading this correctly, then I differ with the orientation of The History in that regard. Bill, you are right to think that I read the documents "out of context" in that sense.

If I understand what Bill de Haas is saying, it would be a little odd to posit that Vatican II led to a decline in vocations, Mass attendance in the US, just because one event preced the other isn't enough to make that connection. Is it also then equally responsible for the growth of Catholicism in emerging nations?And I can't imagine that switching to an SSPX type Church (even one without the controversies) would bring hordes of new Catholics to the Church in the US. And how big is its membership among Catholics in African and Asian nations?